Replies

Not so. If the Fourth were not incorporated, the decision would have been left to Nevada to decide on the basis of the Nevada Constitution. Same with other States. Correct?

Correct. That's basically what I was saying.

With the Fourth incorporated, an individual now has no right under the US Constitution to withhold ID from police.

If the the Fourth were not incorporated, the same is true. Individuals would have no right under the US Constitution to withhold ID from police. Agreed?

Agreed, insofar as it applies to state action. My point, however, was that this ruling eroded protections against actions by the federal government.

Agreed, insofar as it applies to state action. My point, however, was that this ruling eroded protections against actions by the federal government.

Yes, I agree.

From #451: Speaking of Terry's law, that case provides an excellent example of the dangers of "incorporation".

I missed your point the first time. Yes, the fact that the Fourth was incorporated is what got the case to the USSC in the first place. An unincorporated Fourth would have kept the status quo with the Feds.

So if the USSC incorporated the Second Amendment, a risk would be that they would have the opportunity to make an unfavorable ruling on a State gun case which otherwise would not have gotten before them. And with this ruling, it would not change State RKBA, but would give a green light to the Feds to infringe.

In practical terms, it seems Congress is not constrained by any Second Amendment considerations. The precedent has been set and the numerous Federal gun laws are proof. AFAIK, USSC has never struck down a Federal gun law on the basis of a Second Amendment violation.

I don't see any downside to taking the right gun case before the USSC. IMO, the ideal one would be to get a ruling on whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to have a gun in his own home and use it for self defense.

If USSC says it does, then it will have greatly enhanced the RKBA in the US.

If USSC says no, then they have basically nullified the Second Amendment.

States would be no worse off than they are now and the Feds would continue on as they have.

I happen to think it would send shock waves and galvanize supporters of the Second Amendment. What should happen next is a subject worthy of at least a thread or two.

"Agreed, insofar as it applies to state action. My point, however, was that this ruling eroded protections against actions by the federal government."

Yes, and erode protections from the states who choose to implement it.(ie., the citizens of the state no longer have the U.S. Constitution to turn to for relief)

Does this affect other states? No, not directly. But, my point to Ken H was, how long before other states start to implement this expanded interpretation, now that the USSC says it's OK?